Contents

Origins

Polybius was born around 203
BC in Megalopolis, Arcadia, which at that time was an active
member of the Achaean League. His father Lycortas was a prominent
landowning politician and member of the governing class. This gave
Polybius firsthand opportunities to gain an insight into military
and political affairs. Polybius developed an interest in horse
riding and hunting, diversions which helped later to commend him to
his Roman captors. In 182 BC
Polybius was chosen to carry the funeral urn of Philopoemen which was
quite an honor as Philopoemen was the most eminent Achaean
politician of his generation. In 170 or 169 BC Polybius was elected
hipparch or cavalry leader
an office which usually presaged election to the annual strategia or post of general. His early
political career was devoted largely towards maintaining the
independence of the Achaean League.

Personal
experiences

Polybius’ father Lycortas was a chief representative of the
policy of neutrality during the war of the Romans against Perseus of Macedonia. He attracted the
suspicion of the Romans, and as a result, Polybius was one of the
1000 noble Achaeans who in 168 BC were transported to Rome as hostages, and
detained there for 17 years. In Rome, by virtue of his high
culture, he was admitted to the most distinguished houses, in
particular to that of Aemilius Paulus,
the conqueror in the Third Macedonian War, who
entrusted him with the education of his sons, Fabius and Scipio
Aemilianus (who had been adopted by the eldest son of Scipio
Africanus). As the former tutor of Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius
remained on terms of the most cordial friendship and remained a
counselor to the man who defeated the Carthaginians in the
Third Punic
War. The younger Scipio eventually captured and destroyed Carthage, in 146 BC. When the
Achaean hostages were released in 150 BC, Polybius obtained leave
to return home, but in the very next year he went with his friend
to Africa, and was present at the capture of Carthage that he
described. It is likely that following the destruction of Carthage,
he journeyed down the Atlantic coast of Africa as well as
Spain.

After the destruction of Corinth in the same year, he returned to Greece
and made use of his Roman connections to lighten the conditions
there; Polybius was entrusted with the difficult task of organizing
the new form of government in the Greek cities, and in this office
gained for himself the highest recognition.

Rome

The succeeding years he seems to have spent in Rome, engaged on the completion of his historical
work, and occasionally undertaking long journeys through the
Mediterranean countries in the interest of his history, more
particularly with a view to obtaining firsthand knowledge of
historical sites. It also appears that he sought out and
interviewed war veterans in order to clarify details of the events
he was writing about, and was given access to archival material for
the same purpose. Little is known of Polybius' later life. He most
likely journeyed with Scipio to Spain and acted as his military
advisor during the Numantine War, a war he later wrote about
in a lost monograph on the subject. It is also likely that Polybius
returned to Greece later in life, since there are many existent
inscriptions and statues of him in Greece. There is a report of his
death in 118 BC after falling from a horse, although this is only
recorded in one source and that source is known to be
unreliable.

As
historian

Polybius wrote several works, the majority of which are lost.
His earliest book was a biography of the Greek statesman Philopoemen, which was
used as a source by Plutarch. The Polybian text is lost. In
addition, he wrote what appears to have been an extensive treatise
entitled Tactics, which detailed Roman and Greek military
tactics. Small parts of this work may survive in his major
Histories, but the work itself is also lost. Another
missing work was a historical monograph on the events of the Numantine War. The
largest work was of course, his Histories, which we have
only the first five books entirely intact, a large part of the
sixth, and fragments of the rest.

Livy makes reference to and
uses him as source material in his own narrative. Polybius is one
of the first historians to attempt to present history as a sequence
of causes and effects, based upon a careful examination of
tradition and conducted with keen criticism. He narrated his
History upon what he had himself seen and upon the communications
of eye-witnesses and actors in the events. In a classic story of
human behavior, Polybius captures it all: nationalism, xenophobia, duplicitous
politics, horrible battles and brutality, loyalty, valour and
bravery, intelligence, reason and resourcefulness. With his eye for
detail and characteristic critically reasoned style, Polybius
provided a unified view of history rather than a chronology.

A key theme is that the good statesmen is virtuous and controls
his emotions. An archetype of his good statesman was Philip
II. This leads him to reject historian Theopompus' description of Philip's wild and
drunken private life. For Polybius it is inconcievable that such an
able an effective statesman could have such an immoral and
unrestrained private life.[1]

Polybius is considered by some to be the successor of Thucydides in terms of
objectivity and critical reasoning, and the forefather of
scholarly, painstaking historical research in the modern scientific
sense. According to this view, his work sets forth the course of
occurrences with clearness, penetration, sound judgment and, among
the circumstances affecting the result, lays especial stress on the
geographical conditions. It belongs, therefore, to the greatest
productions of ancient historical writing. The writer of the
Oxford Companion to Classical Literature (1937) praises
him for his "earnest devotion to truth" and for his systematic
seeking for the cause of events.

Recently, Polybius's writing has come under a more critical
assessment. In Peter Green's view [2] he is
often partisan and aims to justify his and his father's careers. He
goes out of his way to portray the Achean politician Callicrates in
a bad light; thus, leading the reader to suspect that this is
because Callicrates was responsible for his being sent to Rome as a
hostage. More fundamentally, he — as first a hostage in Rome,
client to the Scipios and then finally as a collaborator with Roman
rule after 146 BC — is not free to express his true opinions. Green
suggests that we should always keep in mind that he was explaining
Rome to a Greek audience to convince them of the necessity of
accepting Roman rule – which he believed as inevitable.
Nonetheless, for Green, Polybius's histories remain invaluable and
the best source for the era he covers. Ron Mellor also sees
Polybius as partisan who, out of loyalty to Scipio, vilified
Scipio's opponents [3]. The
British author Adrian Goldsworthy also constantly
mentions Polybius connections with Scipio when using him as a
source for the latter's time as a general.

Polybius has been noted to be hostile to some of his subject
material; for example, his treatment of Crete has been noted to be biased in a negative
sense.[4] On the
other hand, Hansen notes that Polybius' coverage of Crete supplied
an extremely detailed account of ancient Crete. In fact,
observations made by Polybius (augmented by passages from Strabo and Scylax)[5] allowed
deciphering of the location of the lost ancient city of Kydonia on Crete.[6]

Polybius introduced some theories in The Histories. In it, he
also explained the theory of anacyclosis, or cycle of government, an
idea that Plato had already explored.

Cryptography

Polybius was responsible for a useful tool in telegraphy which allowed
letters to be easily signaled using a numerical system. This idea
also lends itself to cryptographic manipulation and steganography.

1

2

3

4

5

1

A

B

C

D

E

2

F

G

H

I/J

K

3

L

M

N

O

P

4

Q

R

S

T

U

5

V

W

X

Y

Z

This was known as the "Polybius square", where the letters of
the alphabet were arranged left to right, top to bottom in a 5 x 5
square, (when used with the modern 26 letter alphabet, the letters "I" and
"J" are combined). Five numbers were then aligned on the outside
top of the square, and five numbers on the left side of the square
vertically. Usually these numbers were arranged 1 through 5. By
cross-referencing the two numbers along the grid of the square, a
letter could be deduced.

Influence

Polybius was not especially admired by his contemporaries, to
whom his lack of high Attic style was seen as a detriment. Later
Roman authors writing on the same period, Livy and Diodorus especially, adapted much of his
material for their own uses and followed his work extensively. As
the Roman position was cemented in Europe, however, Polybius began
to decline in popularity. Tacitus sneered at his description of the ideal
mixed constitution, and later Imperial writers were generally
ignorant of him. Polybius's work lived on in Constantinople,
although in something of a mangled form, in excerpts on political
theory and administration.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Nonetheless, it was not until the Renaissance that Polybius' works resurfaced
in anything more than a fragmentary form. His works appeared first
in Florence. Polybius
gained something of a following in Italy, and although poor Latin
translations hampered proper scholarship on his work, he
contributed to historical and political discussion there. Niccolò Machiavelli appears to have
been familiar with Polybius when he wrote his Discourses on
Livy. Vernacular translations, in French, German, Italian
and English, first appeared in the sixteenth century.[7] So,
too, in the late sixteenth century, did Polybius find a greater
reading audience among the learned public. Study of the
correspondence of such men as Isaac Casaubon, Jacques Auguste de Thou, William Camden,
and Paolo Sarpi
reveals a growing interest in Polybius' works and thought during
the period. Despite the existence of both printed editions in the
vernacular and increased scholarly interest, however, Polybius
remained an "historian's historian", not much read by the public at
large.[8]
Printings of his work in the vernacular remained few in number—7 in
French, 5 in
English,
and 5 in Italian.[9]

Montesquieu

Polybius' political beliefs have had a continuous appeal to
republican thinkers, from Cicero, to Charles de Montesquieu,
to the Founding Fathers of
the United States[1]. Since the
Enlightenment, Polybius has generally held most appeal to those
interested in Hellenistic Greece and Early Republican Rome, and his
political and military writings have lost influence in academia.
More recently, thorough work on the Greek text of Polybius and his
historical technique has increased academic understanding and
appreciation of Polybius as a historian.

From Wikiquote

Sourced

Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly
desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be
filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well,
therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after
death.

As quoted in The Fine Art of Baloney Detection by Carl Sagan from The
Demon-Haunted World.

The
Histories

This is a sworn treaty made between us, Hannibal ... and
Xenophanes the Athenian ... in the presence of all the gods who
possess Macedonia and the rest of Greece.

Histories, VII, 9, 4 (Loeb, W.R. Paton)

How highly should we honor the Macedonians, who for the greater
part of their lives never cease from fighting with the barbarians
for the sake of the security of Greece? For who is not aware that
Greece would have constantly stood in the greater danger, had we
not been fenced by the Macedonians and the honorable ambition of
their kings?

Histories, IX, 35, 2 (Loeb)

In the past you rivalled the Achaians and the Macedonians,
peoples of your own race, and Philip, their commander, for the
hegemony and glory, but now that the freedom of the Hellenes is at
stake at a war against an alien people (Romans), ...And does it
worth to ally with the barbarians, to take the field with them
against the Epeirotans, the Achaians, the Akarnanians, the
Boiotians, the Thessalians, in fact with almost all the Hellenes
with the exception of the Aitolians who are a wicked nation...
...So Lakedaimonians it is good to remember your ancestors,... be
afraid of the Romans... and do ally yourselves with the Achaians
and Macedonians. But if some the most powerful citizens are opposed
to this policy at least stay neutral and do not side with the
unjust.

Histories, IX, 37.7-39.7 (Loeb)

Had previous chroniclers neglected to speak in praise
of History in general, it might perhaps have been necessary for me
to recommend everyone to choose for study and welcome such
treatises as the present, since men have no more ready corrective
of conduct than knowledge of the past. But all historians,
one may say without exception, and in no half-hearted manner, but
making this the beginning and end of their labour, have impressed
on us that the soundest education and training for a life of active
politics is the study of History, and that surest and indeed the
only method of learning how to bear bravely the vicissitudes of
fortune, is to recall the calamities of others. Evidently therefore
no one, and least of all myself, would think it his duty at this
day to repeat what has been so well and so often said. For the very
element of unexpectedness in the events I have chosen as my theme
will be sufficient to challenge and incite everyone, young and old
alike, to peruse my systematic history. For who is so worthless or
indolent as not to wish to know by what means and under what system
of polity the Romans in less than fifty-three years have succeeded
in subjecting nearly the whole inhabited world to their sole
government — a thing unique in history? Or who again is there so
passionately devoted to other spectacles or studies as to regard
anything as of greater moment than the acquisition of this
knowledge?

How striking and grand is the spectacle presented by the period
with which I purpose to deal, will be most clearly apparent if we
set beside and compare with the Roman dominion the most famous
empires of the past, those which have formed the chief theme of
historians. Those worthy of being thus set beside it and compared
are these. The Persians for a certain period possessed a great rule
and dominion, but so often as they ventured to overstep the
boundaries of Asia they imperilled not only the security of this
empire, but their own existence. The Lacedaemonians, after having
for many years disputed the hegemony of Greece, at length attained
it but to hold it uncontested for scarce twelve years. The
Macedonian rule in Europe extended but from the Adriatic region to
the Danube, which would appear a quite insignificant portion of the
continent. Subsequently, by overthrowing the Persian empire they
became supreme in Asia also. But though their empire was now
regarded as the greatest geographically and politically that had
ever existed, they left the larger part of the inhabited world as
yet outside it. For they never even made a single attempt to
dispute possession of Sicily, Sardinia, or Libya, and the most
warlike nations of Western Europe were, to speak the simple truth,
unknown to them. But the Romans have subjected to their rule not
portions, but nearly the whole of the world and possess an empire
which is not only immeasurably greater than any which preceded it,
but need not fear rivalry in the future. In the course of this work
it will become more clearly intelligible by what steps this power
was acquired, and it will also be seen how many and how great
advantages accrue to the student from the systematic treatment of
history.

The date from which I propose to begin my history is the 140th
Olympiad [220 - 216 B.C.], and the events are the following: (1) in
Greece the so‑called Social War, the first waged against the
Aetolians by the Achaeans in league with and under the leadership
of Philip of Macedon, the son of Demetrius and father of Perseus,
(2) in Asia the war for Coele-Syria between Antiochus and Ptolemy
Philopator, (3) in Italy, Libya, and the adjacent regions, the war
between Rome and Carthage, usually known as the Hannibalic War.
These events immediately succeed those related at the end of the
work of Aratus of Sicyon. Previously the doings of the world had
been, so to say, dispersed, as they were held together by no unity
of initiative, results, or locality; but ever since this date
history has been an organic whole, and the affairs of Italy and
Libya have been interlinked with those of Greece and Asia, all
leading up to one end. And this is my reason for beginning their
systematic history from that date.

For what gives my work its peculiar quality, and what is most
remarkable in the present age, is this. Fortune has guided almost
all the affairs of the world in one direction and has forced them
to incline towards one and the same end; a historian should
likewise bring before his readers under one synoptical view the
operations by which she has accomplished her general purpose.

I observe that while several modern writers deal with
particular wars and certain matters connected with them, no one, as
far as I am aware, has even attempted to inquire critically when
and whence the general and comprehensive scheme of events
originated and how it led up to the end. I therefore
thought it quite necessary not to leave unnoticed or allow to pass
into oblivion this the finest and most beneficent of the
performances of Fortune. For though she is ever producing something
new and ever playing a part in the lives of men, she has not in a
single instance ever accomplished such a work, ever achieved such a
triumph, as in our own times. We can no more hope to perceive this
from histories dealing with particular events than to get at once a
notion of the form of the whole world, its disposition and order,
by visiting, each in turn, the most famous cities, or indeed by
looking at separate plans of each: a result by no means likely.
He indeed who believes that by studying isolated histories
he can acquire a fairly just view of history as a whole, is, as it
seems to me, much in the case of one, who, after having looked at
the dissevered limbs of an animal once alive and beautiful, fancies
he has been as good as an eyewitness of the creature itself in all
its action and grace.

We can get some idea of a whole from a part, but never
knowledge or exact opinion. Special histories therefore contribute
very little to the knowledge of the whole and conviction of its
truth. It is only indeed by study of the interconnexion of all the
particulars, their resemblances and differences, that we are
enabled at least to make a general survey, and thus derive both
benefit and pleasure from history.

All things are subject to decay and change...

The General History of Polybius as translated by James
Hampton' (1762)Vol. II pp. 177-178

When a state after having passed with safety through many and
great dangers arrives at the higher degree of power, and possesses
an entire and undisputed sovereignty, it is manifest that the long
continuance of prosperity must give birth to costly and luxurious
manners, and that the minds of men will be heated with ambitious
contests, and become too eager and aspiring in the pursuit of
dignities. And as those evils are continually increased, the desire
of power and rule, along with the imagined ignominy of remaining in
a subject state, will first begin to work the ruin of the republic;
arroagance and luxury will afterwards advance it; and in the end
the change will be completed by the people; when the avarice of
some is found to injure and oppress them, and the ambition of
others swells their vanity, and poisons them with flattering hopes.
For then, being inflamed with rage, and following only the dictates
of their passions, they no longer will submit to any control, or be
contented with an equal share of the administration, in conjunction
with their rules; but will draw to themselves the entire
sovereignty and supreme direction of all affairs. When this is
done, the government will assume indeed the fairest of a ll names,
that of a free and popular state; but will in truth be the greatest
of all evils, the government of the multitude.

The General History of Polybius as translated by James
Hampton' (1762)Vol. II pp. 177-178

From LoveToKnow 1911

POLYBIUS (c. 204-122 B.C.), Greek
historian, was a native of Megalopolis in Arcadia, the youngest of Greek cities (Paus.
viii. 9), which, however, played an honourable part in the last days of Greek
freedom as a stanch member of the Achaean League. His father, Lycortas,
was the intimate friend of Philopoemen, and on the death of the
latter, in 182, succeeded him as leader of the league. The date of
Polybius's birth is doubtful. He tells us himself that in 181 he
had not yet reached the age (? thirty years, Polyb. xxix. 9) at
which an Achaean was legally capable of holding office (xxiv. 6).
We learn from Cicero (Ad
Fam. v. [12) that he outlived the Numantine War, which ended
[in 132, and from Lucian
(Macrob. 22) that he died at the age of eighty-two. The
majority of authorities therefore place his birth between 214 and
204 B.C. Little is known of his early life. As the son of Lycortas
he was naturally brought into close contact with the leading men of
the Achaean League. With Philopoemen he seems to have been on
intimate terms. After Philopoemen's tragic death in Messenia (182) he was
entrusted with the honourable duty of conveying home the urn in which his ashes had been
deposited (Plut. Phil. 21). In 181, together with his
father, Lycortas and the younger Aratus, he was appointed, in spite of his youth,
a member of the embassy
which was to visit Ptolemy
Epiphanes, king of Egypt, a
mission, however, which the sudden death of Ptolemy brought to a
premature end (xxv. 7). The next twelve years of his life are a blank, but in 169 he reappears as a
trusted adviser of the Achaeans at a difficult crisis in the history
of the League. In 171 war had broken out between Rome and the Macedonian king Perseus, and the Achaean statesmen were divided
as to the policy to be pursued; there were good reasons for fearing
that the Roman senate would
regard neutrality as
indicating a secret leaning towards Macedon. Polybius therefore
declared for an open alliance with Rome, and his views were
adopted. It was decided to send an Achaean force to cooperate with
the Roman general, and Polybius was selected to command the cavalry. The Roman consul declined the proffered
assistance, but Polybius accompanied him throughout the campaign,
and thus gained his first insight into the military system of Rome.
In the next year (168) both Lycortas and Polybius were on the point
of starting at the head of 1200 Achaeans to take service in Egypt
against the Syrians, when an intimation from the Roman commander
that armed interference was undesirable put a stop to the
expedition (xxix. 23). The success of Rome in the war with Perseus
was now assured. The final victory was rapidly followed by the
arrival in Achaea of Roman
commissioners charged with the duty of establishing Roman interests
there. Polybius was arrested with 1000 of the principal Achaeans,
but, while his companions were condemned to a tedious incarceration
in the country towns of Italy,
he obtained permission to reside in Rome. This privilege he owed to
the influence of L. Aemilius Paullus and his two sons, Scipio and Fabius (xxxii. 9). Polybius was received into
Aemilius's house, and became the instructor of his sons. Between
Scipio (P. Cornelius
Scipio Africanus the younger), the future conqueror of Carthage, and himself a
friendship soon sprang up, which ripened into a lifelong intimacy,
and was of inestimable service to him throughout his career. It
protected him from interference, opened to him the highest circles
of Roman society, and enabled him to acquire a personal influence
with the leading men, which stood him in good stead when he
afterwards came forward to mediate between his countrymen and Rome.
It placed within his reach opportunities for a close study of Rome
and the Romans such as had
fallen to no historian before him, and secured him the requisite
leisure for using them, while Scipio's liberality more than once
supplied him with the means of conducting difficult and costly
historical investigations (Pliny, v. 9). In 151 the few surviving
exiles were allowed to return to Greece. But the stay of Polybius in Achaea was
brief. The estimation in which he was held at Rome is clearly shown
by the anxiety of the consul Marcus (or Manlius) Manilius (149) to take him as
his adviser on his expedition against Carthage. Polybius started to
join him, but broke off his journey at Corcyra on learning that the
Carthaginians were inclined to yield (xxxvi. 3). But when, in 147,
Scipio himself took the command in Africa, Polybius hastened to join him, and was
an eye-witness of the siege and destruction of Carthage.
During his absence in Africa the Achaeans had made a last desperate
attempt to assert their independence of Rome. He returned in 146 to
find Corinth in ruins, the
fairest cities of Achaea at the mercy of the Roman soldiery, and the famous
Achaean League shattered to pieces (see Achaean League). All the influence he
possessed was freely spent in endeavouring to shield his countrymen from the worst
consequences of their rashness. The excesses of the soldiery were
checked, and at his special intercession the statues of Aratus and
Philopoemen were preserved (xxxix. 14). An even more difficult task
was that entrusted to him by the Roman authorities themselves, of
persuading the Achaeans to acquiesce in the new regime imposed upon
them by their conquerors, and of setting the new machinery in
working order. With this work, which he accomplished so as to earn the heartfelt gratitude of his
countrymen (xxxix. 16), his public career seems to have closed. The
rest of his life was, so far as we know, devoted to the great
history which is the lasting monument of his fame. He died, at the
age of eighty-two, of a fall from his horse (Lucian, Macrob. 22). The base of
a statue erected to him by Elis
was found at Olym p ia in 1877. It bears the inscription
17 ir6Xcs 'IIXe wv IIoX63tov AUKOpra
ME'yaXoiroXtrriv.

Of the forty books which made up the history of Polybius, the
first five alone have come down to us in a complete form; of the
rest we have only more or less copious fragments. But the general
plan and scope of the work are explained by Polybius himself. His
intention was to make plain how and why it was that "all the known
regions of the civilized world had fallen under the sway of Rome"
(iii. 1). This empire of Rome. unprecedented in its extent and
still more so in the rapidity with which it had been acquired, was
the standing wonder of the age, and "who," he exclaims (i. I), "is
so poor-spirited or indolent as not to wish to know by what means,
and thanks to what sort of constitution, the Romans subdued the
world in something less than fifty-three years?" These fifty-three
years are those between 220 (the point at which the work of Aratus
ended) and 168 B.C., and extend therefore f om the outbreak of the
Hannibalic War to the defeat of Perseus at Pydna. To this period
then the main portion of his history is devoted from the third to
the thirtieth book inclusive. But for clearness' sake he prefixes
in bks. i. and ii. such a preliminary sketch of the earlier history
of Rome, of the First Punic War, and of the contemporary events in
Greece and Asia, as will enable his readers
more full y to understand what follows. This seems to have been his
original plan, but at the opening of bk. iii., written apparently
after 146, he explains that he thought it desirable to add some
account of the manner in which the Romans exercised the power they
had won, of their temperament and policy and of the final catastrophe which
destroyed Carthage and for ever broke np the Achaean League (iii.
4, 5). To this appendix, giving the history from 168-146, the last
ten books are devoted.

Whatever fault may be found
with Polybius, there can be no question that he had formed a high
conception of the task before him. He lays repeated stress on two
qualities as distinguishing his history from the ordinary run of
historical compositions. The first of these, its synoptic
character, was partly necessitated by the nature of the period. The
various states fringing the basin of the Mediterranean had become
so inextricably interwoven that it was no longer possible to deal
with them in isolation. Polybius therefore claims for his history
that it will take a comprehensive view of the whole course of
events in the civilized world, within the limits of the period (i.
4). He thus aims at placing before his readers at each stage a
complete survey of the field of action from Spain to Syria
and Egypt. This synoptic method proceeds from a true appreciation
of what is now called the unity of history, and to Polybius must be
given the credit of having first firmly grasped and clearly
enforced a lesson which the
events of his own time were especially well calculated to teach. It
is the great merit of his work that it gives such a picture of the
2nd and 3rd centuries B.C. as no series of special narratives could
have supplied.

The second quality upon which Polybius insists as distinguishing
his history from all others is its "pragmatic" character. It deals,
that is, with events and with their causes, and aims at an accurate
record and explanation of ascertained facts. This "pragmatic
method" (ix. 2) makes history intelligible by explaining the how
and the why; and, secondly, it is only when so written that history
can perform its true function of instructing and guiding those who
study it. For the great use of history, according to Polybius, is
to contribute to the right conduct of human life (i. 35). But this
it can do only if the historian bears in mind the true nature of
his task. He must remember that the historian should not write as
the dramatist does to charm or
excite his audience for
the moment (ii. 56). He will aim simply at exhibiting events in
their true light, setting forth "the why and the how" in each case,
not confusing causes and occasions, or dragging in old wives'
fables, prodigies and marvels (ii. 16, iii. 48). He will omit
nothing which can help to explain the events he is dealing with:
the genius and temperament of particular peoples, their political
and military systems, the characters of the leading men, the
geographical features of the country, must all be taken into
account. To this conception of history Polybius is on the whole
consistently faithful. It is true that his anxiety to instruct
leads often to a rather wearisome iteration of his favourite
maxims, and that his digressions, such as that on the military art,
are occasionally provokingly long and didactic. But his comments
and reflections are for the most part sound and instructive (e.g.
those on the lessons to be learnt from the revolt of the
mercenaries in Africa, i. 65; from the Celtic raids in Italy, ii.
35; and on the Roman character), while among his digressions are
included such invaluable chapters as those on the Roman
constitution (bk. vi), the graphic description of Cisalpine Gaul (bk. ii.) and the account of the
rise and constitution of the Achaean League (ii. 38 seq.). To his
anxiety again to trace back events to their first causes we owe,
not only the careful inquiry (bk. iii.) into the origin of the
Second Punic War, but the sketch of early Roman history in bk. i.,
and of the early treaties
between Rome and Carthage in iii. 22 seq. Among the many defects
which he censures in previous historians, not the least serious in
his eyes are their inattention to the political and geographical
surroundings of the history (ii. 16, iii. 36), and their neglect
duly to set forth the causes of events (iii. 6).

Polybius is equally explicit as regards the personal
qualifications necessary for a good historian, and in this respect
too his practice is in close agreement with his theory. Without a
personal knowledge of affairs a writer will inevitably distort the
true relations and importance of events (xii. 28). Such experience
would have saved accomplished and fluent Greek writers like Timaeus from many of their
blunders (xii. 25a), but the shortcomings of Roman soldiers and
senators like Q. Fabius Pictor show that it is not
enough by itself. Equally indispensable is careful painstaking
research. All available evidence must be collected, thoroughly
sifted, soberly weighed, and, lastly, the historian must be
animated by a sincere love of truth and a calm impartiality.

It is important to consider how far Polybius himself comes up to
his standard. In his personal acquaintance with affairs, in the
variety of his experience, and in his opportunities for forming a
correct judgment on events he is without a rival among ancient
historians. A great part of the period of which he treats fell
within his own lifetime (iv. 2). He may just have remembered the
battle of Cynoscephalae (197), and, as we have seen, he was
actively engaged in the military and political affairs of the
Achaean League. During his exile in Rome he was able to study the
Roman constitution, and the peculiarities of the Roman temperament;
he made the acquaintance of Roman senators, and became the intimate
friend of the greatest Roman of the day. Lastly, he was able to
survey with his own eyes the field on which the great struggle
between Rome and Hannibal
was fought out. He left Rome only to witness the crowning triumph
of Roman arms in Africa, and to gain a practical acquaintance with
Roman methods of government by assisting in the settlement of
Achaea. When, in 146, his public life closed, he completed his
preparation of himself for his great work by laborious
investigations of archives and monuments, and by a careful personal
examination of historical sites and scenes. To all this we must add
that he was deeply read in the learning of his day, above all in
the writings of earlier historians.

Of Polybius's anxiety to get at the truth no better proof can be
given than his conscientious investigation of original documents
and monuments, and his careful study of geography and topography - both of them points in which
his predecessors, as well as his successor Livy, conspicuously failed. Polybius is careful
constantly to remind us that he writes for those who are
CALXoµaO€is lovers of knowledge, with whom truth is the
first consideration. He closely studied the bronze tablets in Rome on which were inscribed
the early treaties concluded between Romans and Carthaginians. He
quotes the actual language of the treaty which ended the First
Punic War (i. 62), and of that between Hannibal and Philip of Macedon (vii. 9). In
xvi. 15 he refers to a document which he had personally inspected
in the archives at Rhodes, and
in iii. 33 to the monument on the Lacinian promontory, recording
the number of Hannibal's forces. According to Dionysius, i. 17, he got his date for the
foundation of Rome from a tablet in the pontifical archives. As
instances of his careful attention to geography and topography we
have not only the fact of his widely extended travels, from the
African coast and the Pillars of Hercules in the west, to the Euxine and the
coasts of Asia Minor
in the east, but also the geographical and topographical studies
scattered throughout his history.

Next to the duty of original research, Polybius ranks that of
impartiality. Some amount of bias
in favour of one's own country may, he thinks, be pardoned as
natural (xvi. 14); but it is unpardonable, he says, for the
historian to set anything whatever above the truth. And on the
whole, Polybius must be allowed here again to have practised what
he preached. It is true that his affection for and pride in Arcadia appear in
more than one passage (iv. 20, 21). as also does his dislike of the
Aetolians (ii. 45, iv. 3, 16). His treatment of Aratus and
Philopoemen, the heroes of the Achaean League, and of Cleomenes of Sparta, its most constant enemy,
is perhaps open to severer criticism. Certainly Cleomenes does not
receive full justice at his hands. Similarly his views of Rome and
the Romans may have been influenced by his firm belief in the
necessity of accepting the Roman supremacy as inevitable, and by
his intimacy with Scipio. He had a deep admiration for the great
republic, for her well-balanced constitution, for her military
system, and for the character of her citizens. But just as his
patriotism does not blind him to the faults and follies of his
countrymen (xxxviii. 4, 5, 6), so he does not scruple to criticize Rome. He notices the
incipient degeneracy of Rome after 146 (xviii. 35). He endeavours
to hold the balance evenly between Rome and Carthage; he strongly
condemns the Roman occupation of Sardinia as a breach of faith (iii. 28, 31); and he does full
justice to Hannibal. Moreover, there can be no doubt that he
sketched the Roman character in a masterly fashion.

His interest in the study of character and his skill in its
delineation are everywhere noticeable. He believes, indeed, in an
overruling fortune, which guides the course of events. It is
fortune which has fashioned anew the face of the world in his own
time (iv. 2), which has brought the whole civilized world into
subjection to Rome (i. 4); and the Roman Empire itself is the most
marvellous of her works (viii. 4). But under fortune not only
political and geographical conditions but the characters and
temperaments of nations and individuals play their part. The Romans
had been fitted by their previous struggles for the conquest of the
world (i. 63); they were chosen to punish the treachery of Philip
of Macedon (xv. 4); and the greatest of them, Scipio himself,
Polybius regards as the especial favourite of fortune (xxxii. 15;
x. 5).

In respect of form, Polybius is far the inferior of Livy,
partly, owing to his very virtues. His laudable desire to present a
picture of the whole political situation at each important moment
is fatal to the continuity of his narrative. Thus the thrilling
story of the Second Punic War is broken in upon by digressions on
the contemporary affairs in Greece and Asia. More serious, however,
than this excessive love of synchronism is his almost pedantic
anxiety to edify. For grace and elegance of composition, and for
the artistic presentation of events, he has a hardly concealed
contempt. Hence a general and almost studied carelessness of
effect, which mars his whole work.
On the other hand he is never weary of preaching. His favourite theories of the
nature and aims of history, of the distinction between the
universal and special histories, of the duties of an historian,
sound as most of them are in themselves, are enforced with
wearisome iteration; more than once the effect of a graphic picture
is spoilt by obtrusive moralizing. Nor, lastly, is Polybius's style itself such as to compensate
for these defects. It is, indeed, often impressive from the evident
earnestness of the writer, and from his sense of the gravity of his
subject, and is unspoilt by rhetoric or conceit. It has about it the ring
of reality; the language is sometimes pithy and vigorous; and now
and then we meet with apt metaphors, such as those borrowed from boxing (i. 57), from cock-fighting (i.
58), from draughts (i.
84). But, in spite of these redeeming features, the prevailing baldness of Polybius's style
excludes him from the first rank among classical writers; and it is
impossible to quarrel with the verdict pronounced by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who
places him among those authors of later times who neglected the graces of style, and
who paid for their neglect by leaving behind them works "which no
one was patient enough to read through to the end." It is to the
value and variety of his matter, to his critical insight, breadth
of view and wide research, and not least to the surpassing
importance and interest of the period with which he deals, that
Polybius owes his place among the writers of history. What is known
as to the fortunes of his histories, and the reputation they
enjoyed, fully bears out this conclusion. The silence respecting
him maintained by Quintilian and by Lucian may reasonably be
taken to imply their agreement with Dionysius as to his merits as a
master of style. On the other hand, Cicero (De off. iii.
32) describes him as "bonus
auctor in primis"; in the De republics (ii. 14) he praises
highly his accuracy in matters of chronology; and Cicero's younger
contemporary, Marcus Brutus,
was a devoted student of Polybius, and was engaged on the eve of the battle of Pharsalia in
compiling an epitome of his
histories (Suidas, s.v.; Plutarch, Brut. 4). Livy, however,
notwithstanding the extent to which he used his writings (see
LivY), speaks of him in such qualified terms as to suggest the idea
that his strong artistic sensibilities had been wounded by
Polybius's literary defects. He has nothing better to say of him
than that he is "by no means contemptible" (xxx. 45), and "not an
untrustworthy author" (xxxiii. io). Posidonius and Strabo, both of them Stoics like Polybius himself, are said to have
written continuations of his history (Suidas, s.v.; Strabo p. 515).
Arrian in the early part of
the 2nd and Aelian in the 3rd century
both speak of him with respect, though with reference mainly to his
excellence as an authority on the art of war. In addition to his
Histories Polybius was the author of the following smaller
works: a life of Philopoemen (Polyb. x. 24), a history of the
Numantine War (Cic. Ad Fam. v. 12), a treatise on tactics (Polyb. ix. 20; Arrian,
Tactica; Aelian, Tact. i.). The geographical
treatise, referred to by Geminus, is possibly identical with the
thirty-fourth
book of the Histories (Schweighauser, Praef.
p. 184.

Authorities

- The complete books (i. - v.) of the Histories were
first printed in a Latin
translation by Nicholas Perotti in 1 473.
The date of the first Greek edition, that by Obsopaeus, is 1530.
For a full account of these and of later editions, as well as of
the extant MSS., see Schweighauser's Preface to his edition of
Polybius. Our knowledge of the contents of the fragmentary books is
derived partly from quotations in ancient writers, but mainly from
two collections of excerpts; one, probably the work of a late
Byzantine compiler, was first printed at Basel in 1549 and contains extracts from books
vi. - xviii. (7rep1. 7rpev 1 3eiwv, 7repi aperi j s
Kai KaKias); the other consists of two fragments from the
"select passages" from Greek historians compiled by the directions
of Constantine
Porphyrogenitus in the 10th century. To these must be added the
Vatican excerpts edited by Angelo Mai in the present century.